Page 2370 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The committee had an opportunity to make a valuable contribution around government spending and protecting and improving our economy. However, it was disappointing to note that the recommendations are almost entirely devoid of strategic economic input. The report has over 130 recommendations but less than 10 per cent appear to relate to the budget, the ACT economy or to our economic future.
Rather than use the opportunity to engage in a productive dialogue, the opposition chose to focus on matters that were either politically motivated or outside the scope of the budget. It is not my intention here to delve line by line through the many sham allegations or personal policy interests of the MLAs. Rather, I will outline my understanding of the measures being taken by our government to secure and protect our economy and I will raise areas of key dissent and provide, hopefully, some balance to the report.
The public hearings are a critical part of the estimates review process, and I support open and frank dialogue. However, at times the meetings were not productive due to repeated interjections, commentary and behaviour that is best suited to other forums. On the matter of using estimates for political gain, it is of great concern to me that the opposition took advantage of the committee to engage in a campaign of negative political antics. We have seen this play out here again this morning and it is of great concern to me that the committee could be seen as a vehicle for the opposition to attack the ACT public service. I believe that the ACT public service conducts itself with independence and professionalism, and it is a service that I am proud of.
I would like to raise the matter of expert advice being ignored. In April, a motion was carried that allowed for the engagement of external expertise to work with the committee to facilitate the analysis of the budget and the preparation of the report. In May, the committee engaged Mr Tony Harris, the former New South Wales Auditor-General and a consultant with considerable experience in economic and budgetary matters. Mr Harris provided reports on, for example, a review of the ACT 2009-10 budget, a daily analysis of hearing outcomes pertaining to financial issues raised, an analysis of the outyear funding for both health and education and a comment on the effects on the ACT budget of commonwealth funding.
I note that the opposition would rather ignore the comments made by the former auditor-general and favour comments made by stakeholder lobby groups. I can only deduce that this is because the meeting comments from the stakeholder groups better suited their oppositional commentary.
Much has been said today on the matter of questions on notice. No-one would suggest that questions on notice are not an important part of the estimates process or, indeed, the Assembly’s process. I would suggest, though, that, in keeping with this renewed focus on transparent and accountable governance, it would be of benefit to learn the cost of delivering and responding to these questions on notice. While questions on notice are a valid part of the accountability process, I draw the reader’s attention to some of them. I think, Mr Coe, you bear responsibility for this because it is the first question on the website:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .